@jjff a reasonable assumption since the stimulus didn't talk about any other costs in which halophytes or freshwater plants differ we can assume that they're the same. It'd be more unreasonable to assume one or the other is higher with no prior evidence.

@Mdj I get what you're saying and where you're coming from but just because some plant species tolerate salt that doesn't mean that when we water them with sea water that their yield changes. Instead of putting river water and adding salt we just put sea-water that already has salt. If the plants required sea-water that doesn't mean that it's the seawater that is producing the smaller yield. This specific species of plant has a smaller yield than another plant and it also tolerates or if we take B to be true requires sea water. Idk if this helped but I think you're assuming that if we gave this plant freshwater the yield would change. It doesn't say that the type of water it gets changes the yield.

@Calin One more thing, for AC D J.Y talks about how if the stimulus read that the asteroid was worldwide but it was some other asteroid then AC D would work. Can we say that just because there is no evidence that it didn't happen? Does this weaken the argument? Also if AC D would have said that we don't know of any other asteroid that struck earth at the same time that wouldn't weaken the argument because even if we don't know something that doesn't mean it didn't happen, correct?

So if the stimulus read that the asteroid caused no extinctions then would AC C weaken the stimulus? Also would the wording of AC C have to be more specific, instead of fossils being discovered it would have to say that it somehow found that there was at least one species that was went extinct because of the asteroid?

@AbigailFourspring I could be wrong in what youre trying to ask but the cases keep growing because if lets say 30 years ago I played outside everyday without sunscreen and then when it got popular 5 years later I started wearing it, I already caught skin cancer when I wasn't wearing sunscreen even if I started applying it I already have it. Maybe it marinated for 20+ years and when I'm older I just now got it. I still wore sunscreen but since I didn't wear it when I was young, applying it when I get older doesn't cancel out the effects of when I didn't use to wear it. obviously you have to multiply that by someone who was born the day after me, week after me, month after me, year after me, even a decade after me. Then you can reasonably say at least who knows maybe 1000 people are born a day and if every single one did the same thing as me the cases keep growing. Hope that helped!

If answer choice D "The screening instruments used by the psychiatrist are extremely accurate in revealing levels of anxiety and depression among university students." said that the screening instruments were wrong and 20 out of 100 student's data were off would that not help the argument? I know I might be nitpicking what extremely accurate means but if it said that the instruments weren't actually accurate could you then conclude that we can't say that if students spend more their anxiety and depression wouldn't increase? Thank you in advance.

You're correct, "I will go to the concert, unless it is a 2 hour drive." maps out as

concert-/2 hour drive

and the contrapositive is

/concert-2 hour drive

You can't say If its a 2 hour drive then I won't go to the concert because then the concert becomes necessary for the 2 hour drive to happen you confusing sufficiency for necessity.

@CMas almost all is talking about the people who believed that Mayor Walker is guilty of ethical violations and they also thought that he was a bad or poor mayor it does represent the 48% but it doesn't compare it to the other 52% to include 100% of people. When it says almost all it's saying that almost all of the people who believed that the mayor was guilty of ethical violations, of those people 48% thought that he was already a bad person before the scandal. Basically the almost all is referring to almost all of the 48% not the 48% when compared to the rest of the people that thought he was a good or excellent mayor.

@bappel In a MBT question we have to take the stimulus as true so in this case D says exactly what the stimulus said. The stimulus said that from the 1990s into the next decade a doubling in a microchip's computing speed was accompanied by a doubling cost of producing that microchip. So if we take that to be true like we're supposed to on Must Be True questions, D says the same thing just in the opposite way. Instead of saying that a doubling in a microchip's computing speed was accompanied by a doubling cost of producing said microchip, D says that a doubling in fabrication of the microchip was accompanied by a doubling in transistors which equates to computing speeds because from my interpretation they're dependent or necessary on each other, computing speed doubled, transistors doubled and vice versa. Hope that helped!

@GabrielleFils-Aime My mistake I understand what you mean now. The reason that answer B is the right answer is because it doesn't strengthen the argument of the educator. The educator's argument is that the program is successful because it teaches children's parents how to be the child's "first teacher" and that's why they do well in school. answer choice B is saying well wait a second if parents have educational experience and have already taught children then the program isn't successful because the program is teaching parents how to teach children it's successful because the parents already know how to teach which would mean that the program has no purpose. It's not the program that's making these children have better scores than the average child, it's the parents with educational experience. So it doesn't strengthen the argument because it's saying that what's making a difference isn't the program it's the children's parents who have experience as educators. I hope I helped!

@GabrielleFils-Aime the argument that the educator is trying to make is that these programs, the ones who put the child's parents as the childs first educator causes said children in these experimental educational programs to perform better than average in school, i.e higher grades. Answer choice A says that not all small children enjoy being taught by their parents. Even if this is the case we can't assume that for example and I might be reaching, that these children when being taught by their parents don't listen and in turn don't absorb any of the knowledge they're being taught; so they don't perform better than average in school. Just because they don't enjoy something doesn't mean that it isn't beneficial in a certain field. So even if these children don't enjoy being taught by their parents they could still perform better in school than those not taught by their parents. For answer choice E my interpretation is that even though some of the children who weren't part of these programs performed exceptionally well in school that has nothing to do with why the program isn't successful. Maybe those kids were super smart, maybe they studied a lot longer than everyone else, just because some people don't participate in one thing and do as well or better than the ones who did doesn't mean that we can say that the program doesn't work. If there are 100 people who got into an accident and all equally injured their legs, 75 went to physical therapy and 25 didn't and then we say that of those 75 people 50 made a recovery in 2 months and 20 of the ones who didn't made the same recovery in 2 months can we really say look, 20 who didn't go to PT made a recovery so therefore PT is useless. What about the 50 who made a recovery? just because someone got the same results without a program or help we can't say that thing is useless.

Sorry for the rambling maybe this confused you more, I hope I helped!

I'm wondering for the rule + exception framework if we have resident--->prohibited--->/purpose if our animal does serve a legitimate medical purpose so purpose then wouldn't the contrapositive be purpose--->/prohibited--->/resident? since being a resident requires the prohibition of keeping pets in their apartment wouldn't the chain just follow all the way through?

@BreanaNunez yes

@Senator94 That's awesome I respect the dedication. You have obviously put in the work and I can relate to driving your whole family and friends insane with the LSAT questions and things you've learned I genuinely hope you do well, your efforts won't betray you. Goodluck soldier!

@mango I know that you're probably long gone but B is making an absolute claim instead of the relative comparison as well as saying that people usually don't notice the appearance or behavior of others with "tend" meaning usually not, or more often than not. If in the first example students assumed that 100% of people could tell they were lying and "vastly overestimated" meant 51% of people that would be a vast overestimate but it would negate the claim that people tend not to notice since the majority do. With the last example "a small fraction could mean 1/10th" and "contrary to the students expectation" could mean that they believed 10/10th's would notice which like I said above negates the" People tend (usually, more often than not) not to notice the appearance or behavior of others."

How long have you been studying for?